Four-eyes review, sized to your team

One Workflow, Your Controls

Every case moves through the same stages: open, in progress, under review, escalated, pending closure, closed. What changes from one organization to the next is the control on each move. In Quantoflow, each move between two stages has its own settings, and you can see the whole workflow as a diagram before you change any of it.

The Rule You Can’t Turn Off

Whenever a move needs approval, the person who asked for it cannot approve it. This holds for every move and every configuration, and no setting relaxes it. You decide how many approvals a move needs and who may give them. You never decide whether someone may approve their own request: the answer is always no.

That is the point of four-eyes review. A control that can be switched off by accident is not one an examiner can rely on.

Four Teams, Four Setups

The workflow is the same shape everywhere. The settings follow team size and regulatory exposure.

A small fintech, three or four in compliance

Most moves need no approval. Closing a case needs one, from an Admin. Why one and not two? With one or two Admins in total, a two-approval rule would stall every close whenever one of them is away. The four-eyes control is still there, since the requester can’t approve; only the count is scaled to the team.

A regulated bank with a large compliance team

Closing a case needs two approvals, from named senior officers rather than a role, and a written reason. Reopening a closed case is limited to two named compliance leads. Why names and not a role? Reopening a case that may already have an STR filed is sensitive. If the rule were “any Admin”, every new Admin would quietly widen the list. Naming people gives a cleaner answer when an auditor asks who could do it.

A high-volume neobank with one compliance lead

Closing a case needs one approval, from an Admin, for the same reason as the small fintech: one lead cannot be a two-person gate. Every move to pending closure needs a written reason. At this volume nobody can re-review every case, so the written rationale is the quality control.

A firm with a sanctions review group

On sanctions cases, moving from escalated to pending closure is limited to three named sanctions specialists. Here “who may review this” is a matter of expertise, not job title. A role can’t express that; a list of names can.

Reasons, Without the Typing

When a move needs a reason, the analyst is asked for one at that moment, before the case moves. Each kind of move has its own list of starting points: why a case is ready to close, why a reviewer sent it back, why a case is being returned to an analyst. Lists for closing and returning a case are under Settings. Moves your organization adds get their own list. Read how this works at the end of an investigation in case closure.

Changes to the Workflow Need Approval Too

The workflow is itself a control, so it gets the same treatment. A change to any move is proposed, then approved by someone other than the person who proposed it, and the approver sees exactly what will change before it applies. Every change is written to a workflow log that cannot be edited afterwards: who changed which move, and when. Along with the audit trail for every case action, you can show not only what happened on a case, but what the rules were when it did.

Plan for the People You Have

One thing to watch when you name approvers: if the list is short and the requester is on it, there may be nobody left to approve. Quantoflow refuses the approval with a clear message rather than letting it through. Keep at least one more name on each list than the number of approvals you require.

Book a demo and set up an approval workflow for your team.